9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Murthy, Member (Technical) (Final Order No. A/2375/WZB/Ahd/2008-CII dt. 31.10.2008 certified on 12.11.2008 in Appeal No. ST/02/2008) Shri K.B. Patel, Consultant for Appellant. Ms. M.I.J. Micheal, Jt. CDR for Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)]. - The appellant is engaged in providing cable operator service. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for non payment of service tax on the services provided by them during the period from March 2003 to September 2004, which culminated in confirmation of demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 39,692/-, equal amount of penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In fact, original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deserve lenient treatment, she submits that the fact that appellants have taken a registration and paid the tax shows that the liability was on them and agreement is not relevant. She also pointed out that it there was no written agreement but only a verbal and mutual understanding and would not help the appellant. 3. I have heard the submissions from both sides. 3.1 I find that the Commissioner has reproduced Section 76 and has discussed elaborately and as observed by him that appellants are liable to pay penalty under Section 76 in view of the delay of 3203 days. Further, Section 76 does not give any discretion and discretionary power can be exercised only under Section 80. But in this case appellants have failed to show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proviso: Provided also that where the service tax determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the purposes of this Section, the service tax as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account." In view of the fact that the proviso does not include Commissioner but has mentioned only Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunals or the courts as regards applicability of the proviso relating to abatement of penalty, the non payment of 25% of enhanced penalty in terms of Commissioner's order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, would not affect the right of the appellant to pay the penalty within 30 days of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
